STUDY: Liberals Tend To Be Weaklings

Discussion in 'Politics' started by pspr, May 16, 2013.

  1. pspr


    This plays out on ET every day. Liberals are always the pussies.

    Men who are physically strong are more likely to have right wing political views

    • Weaker men more likely to support welfare state and wealth redistribution

    • Link may reflect psychological traits that evolved in our ancestors

    • Strength was a proxy for ability to defend or acquire resources

    • There is no link between women's physical strength and political views

    By Emma Innes

    PUBLISHED: 05:21 EST, 16 May 2013

    Men who are physically strong are more likely to take a right wing political stance, while weaker men are inclined to support the welfare state, according to a new study.

    Researchers discovered political motivations may have evolutionary links to physical strength.

    Men's upper-body strength predicts their political opinions on economic redistribution, according to the research.

    The principal investigators - psychological scientists Michael Bang Petersen, of Aarhus University in Denmark, and Daniel Sznycer, of the University of California in the U.S., believe that the link may reflect psychological traits that evolved in response to our early ancestral environments and continue to influence behavior today.

    Professor Petersen said: ‘While many think of politics as a modern phenomenon, it has - in a sense - always been with our species.’

    In the days of our early ancestors, decisions about the distribution of resources were not made in courthouses or legislative offices, but through shows of strength.

    With this in mind, Professor Petersen and Professor Sznycer hypothesized that upper-body strength - a proxy for the ability to physically defend or acquire resources - would predict men's opinions about the redistribution of wealth.

    The researchers collected data on bicep size, socio-economic status, and support for economic redistribution from hundreds of people in the United States, Argentina and Denmark.

    In line with their hypotheses, the data revealed that wealthy men with high upper-body strength were less likely to support redistribution, while less wealthy men of the same strength were more likely to support it.

    Professor Petersen said: ‘Despite the fact that the United States, Denmark and Argentina have very different welfare systems, we still see that - at the psychological level - individuals reason about welfare redistribution in the same way.

    ‘In all three countries, physically strong males consistently pursue the self-interested position on redistribution.’

    Men with low upper-body strength, on the other hand, were less likely to support their own self-interest.

    Wealthy men of this group showed less resistance to redistribution, while poor men showed less support.

    Professor Petersen said: ‘Our results demonstrate that physically weak males are more reluctant than physically strong males to assert their self-interest - just as if disputes over national policies were a matter of direct physical confrontation among small numbers of individuals, rather than abstract electoral dynamics among millions.’

    However, the researchers found no link between upper-body strength and redistribution opinions among women.

    Professor Petersen argued that this is likely due to the fact that, over the course of evolutionary history, women had less to gain, and also more to lose, from engaging in direct physical aggression.

    He said, together, the results indicate that an evolutionary perspective may help to illuminate political motivations, at least those of men.

    Professor Petersen added: ‘Many previous studies have shown that people's political views cannot be predicted by standard economic models.

    ‘This is among the first studies to show that political views may be rational in another sense, in that they're designed by natural selection to function in the conditions recurrent over human evolutionary history.’

    The findings were published in the journal Psychological Science.
  2. Max E.

    Max E.

    No real surprise here, people who are inferior, or were losers growing up tend to turn into liberals, where as people who were winners, and or popular growing up tend to turn into conservatives.

    Conservatives are able to get by on their own, where as liberals are not. Both sides just talking up their own book.
  3. Stupid.

    I know many liberals, myself included, who has never taken an insult from a winger in person.

    You wingers start crap on an internet forum, but in real life, you sit in the corner, and sip your beer.
  4. pspr


    Says the guy who's too chicken shit to go have dinner with Maverick74. :D
  5. pspr


    You're right. The results of this study are self-evident in life.
  6. If Mav decides to be an ass, I cannot go to jail. Not yet.

    Not saying that Mav might be a redneck with a chip, but if he is, I have a lot more to lose than he does.

    No different than when they tell military, if someone challenges you, walk away. If they beat your ass, you lose. If you beat their ass, you lose.

    Most of you would never have the balls to say to me what you say here.
  7. pspr


    What the hell are you talking about? Most people don't meet and expect to have a physical confrontation.

    Maybe that's how you and your 'brohs' function but that's not the real world.
  8. If I am walking by a farmyard and hear a donkey braying, I don't get into an argument with him either.
  9. pspr


    Typical Liberal

    <img src= width=300 height=300>

    Known Conservative

    <img src=>
  10. Tell me about it.

    Native Americans, Africans, Japanese, Chinese, and Indians have also historically held this belief.

    At some point, you have to look at the evidence and draw a conclusion.
    #10     May 16, 2013